Reports suggested that the smartphone's 3D capabilities were powered by the Movidius Myriad 1 3D-sensing chip, but as it turns out, Project Tango is also powered by Apple technology. Alongside two Myriad 1 vision co-processors, Project Tango utilizes a PrimeSense Capri PS1200 3D imaging system-on-a-chip [PDF], technology that Apple acquired when it purchased PrimeSense late last year.

The unexpected PrimeSense chip was discovered in a teardown of the Project Tango smartphone by iFixit that was posted this morning.

Quote:

This appears to be PrimeSense's new Capri PS1200 SoC 3D imaging chip, unexpected for a couple of reasons:

Just last year, Apple bought PrimeSense, manufacturer of the Kinect's 3D vision hardware. Speculators assumed we would be seeing this hot new hardware in an upcoming iOS device, with intent of mapping 3D spaces. Looks like Tango beat Apple to the punch with their own tech?

Google's Project Tango smartphone is one of the first mobile devices to use the diminutive Capri 3D sensor and it offers a glimpse at what Apple could possibly do with the technology in the future.

Project Tango is essentially a mapping tool, capturing the world around each user to provide directions, dimensions, and environmental maps. Google also has plans to use the technology to create immersive augmented reality games and apps that merge the digital world with the real world.

According to iFixit, Project Tango works very similarly to the original Microsoft Kinect, which also used technology developed by PrimeSense. Tango displays a bright grid of dots that are captured by IR sensors to build a depth map.

Along with the Capri 3D chip and the Myriad vision co-processors, Project Tango incorporates four separate cameras to capture its environment. Amazon is said to be working on a similar device that incorporates multiple cameras for 3D mapping and with Google and Amazon both working on 3D projects, it is reasonable to assume that Apple is also experimenting with the technology.

There have been no hints that Apple intends to incorporate PrimeSense technology in the upcoming iPhone 6, but motion control capabilities similar to the Kinect have been rumored for the next-generation Apple TV set-top box, so the first Apple device to use PrimeSense technology may very well be the Apple TV. Project Tango proves that PrimeSense's 3D chips are ready for mobile devices and it is likely that the company is continuing development on its Capri chips, improving the technology for possible inclusion in future iPads and iPhones.

How would they have "beat Apple to the punch with their own technology" if Project Tango is still just a project in their labs right now? So presumably same as Apple unless they know exactly how far Apple has gotten in their own labs.

How would they have "beat Apple to the punch with their own technology" if Project Tango is still just a project in their labs right now? So presumably same as Apple unless they know exactly how far Apple has gotten in their own labs.

You just pointed out what is wrong with a lot of Apple vs Google comparisons. Those two companies choose to reveal a very different amount of information about their upcoming products, yet people act as if announced prototypes were equivalent to real products.

Google is "innovating" with Project Ara, Project Tango, Android Wear, driverless cars and Google Glass, whereas Apple are well, "not innovating" according to many, as if their next big projects will appear out of thin air the day they are announced.

You just pointed out what is wrong with a lot of Apple vs Google comparisons. Those two companies choose to reveal a very different amount of information about their upcoming products, yet people act as if announced prototypes were equivalent to real products.

Google is "innovating" with Project Ara, Project Tango, driverless cars and Glass, whereas Apple are well, "not innovating" according to many, as if their next big projects will appear out of thin air the day they are announced.

I know. It's pretty laughable if you think about it. I notice Google announces a lot of stuff without actually bringing something real to the market that people can actually buy. Sounds like just a bunch of Google PR fluff so they can make headlines in blogs to me. And it seems like a lot of people are starting to recognize it for what it is and point it out.

I know. It's pretty laughable if you think about it. I notice Google announces a lot of stuff without actually bringing something real to the market that people can actually buy. Sounds like just a bunch of Google PR fluff so they can make headlines in blogs to me. And it seems like a lot of people are starting to recognize it for what it is and point it out.

Just as well Google used it, if it was left to Apple it would never see the light of day.

Google hasn't used it and it still hasn't "seen the light of day". Not by any measure more than Apple as far as anyone knows. Everyone has prototypes in their labs. Apple chooses not to show theirs. You didn't see a "Project EyePhone" in 2004 even though by that time they were already working on the iPhone and had prototypes developed.

I know. It's pretty laughable if you think about it. I notice Google announces a lot of stuff without actually bringing something real to the market that people can actually buy. Sounds like just a bunch of Google PR fluff so they can make headlines in blogs to me. And it seems like a lot of people are starting to recognize it for what it is and point it out.

Or, instead of looking at it with some sort of conspiracy thoery or malice, maybe Google does it because they are techno junkies and love trying out new thoeries and ideas, even if they dont necessarily have a viable monetary reward for such and are attempting to try new technologies for advancement sake and not pure profit (since they make profit elsewhere).

Where, Apple runs their tech advancement as a pure profit house. only things that are profitable are developed, and technologies that might actually make life better can be often ignored and forgotten by them since it's not profitable enough for their time and effort.

but no. Of course for you it's easier to believe Google is just a failure of a company and only does it for PR.

BTW, while google has had it's share of projects that go nowhere... Apple has their share of failures in the past as well...

__________________
We can't win against obsession. They care, we don't. They win.
― Douglas Adams, Life, the Universe and Everything

You just pointed out what is wrong with a lot of Apple vs Google comparisons. Those two companies choose to reveal a very different amount of information about their upcoming products, yet people act as if announced prototypes were equivalent to real products.

Google is "innovating" with Project Ara, Project Tango, Android Wear, driverless cars and Google Glass, whereas Apple are well, "not innovating" according to many, as if their next big projects will appear out of thin air the day they are announced.

You hit the nail on the head Apple and Google do things very different and their are pro's and con's to both. A con with the Google approach is they need to be careful not to disclose too much without follow-through or people will loose interest in their "Projects". However, Apple may be more secretive about things, but they do need to have the "rubber hit the road" on a few things or they will get the perception like they do now as "not innovating".

Or, instead of looking at it with some sort of conspiracy thoery or malice, maybe Google does it because they are techno junkies and love trying out new thoeries and ideas, even if they dont necessarily have a viable monetary reward for such and are attempting to try new technologies for advancement sake and not pure profit (since they make profit elsewhere).

Where, Apple runs their tech advancement as a pure profit house. only things that are profitable are developed, and technologies that might actually make life better can be often ignored and forgotten by them since it's not profitable enough for their time and effort.

but no. Of course for you it's easier to believe Google is just a failure of a company and only does it for PR.

BTW, while google has had it's share of projects that go nowhere... Apple has their share of failures in the past as well...

Wait, I see a couple fallacies in there.

First, who said Google was a failure of a company? Who said a privately held corporation trying to maximize profits (i.e. their primary goal) is a malice or conspiracy? Marketing is perfectly legal and normal.

Why do you talk as if profitability and making a positive difference on life were mutually exclusive?

Also, the fact Google is trying new things that aren't necessarily profitable doesn't explain why they make their early prototypes public before anyone can actually use them. They could choose to make non-profitable new projects and announce them once you can actually use them.

Do you seriously think Google's marketing department doesn't have a word to say on the timing of product announcement? That stuff isn't black or white, it doesn't rely on a single factor. It includes tons of factor, one of which is PR. The fact Google likes new ideas isn't sufficient proof to say PR had absolutely no impact on those decisions.

Also, the fact Google is trying new things that aren't necessarily profitable doesn't explain why they make their early prototypes public before anyone can actually use them. They could choose to make non-profitable new projects and announce them once you can actually use them.

why? because there's no beta testing like public beta testing.

There's only so much testing you can do in a lab. The best way is to get the objects to be tested in the hands of as many you can to do real world testing...

MAYBE if apple did that for the iphone 4, the Antenna gate issue might have been avoided

the PR comment was directed to newagemac who believes that Google only does it for "PR FLUFF"

anyways, my comments were directly responses to his, try reading it first, it will give you context to my points.

__________________
We can't win against obsession. They care, we don't. They win.
― Douglas Adams, Life, the Universe and Everything

Or, instead of looking at it with some sort of conspiracy thoery or malice, maybe Google does it because they are techno junkies and love trying out new thoeries and ideas, even if they dont necessarily have a viable monetary reward for such and are attempting to try new technologies for advancement sake and not pure profit (since they make profit elsewhere).

Where, Apple runs their tech advancement as a pure profit house. only things that are profitable are developed, and technologies that might actually make life better can be often ignored and forgotten by them since it's not profitable enough for their time and effort.

but no. Of course for you it's easier to believe Google is just a failure of a company and only does it for PR.

BTW, while google has had it's share of projects that go nowhere... Apple has their share of failures in the past as well...

The problem people have with Google and their PR campaigns is that Google isn't actually bringing out any projects to make the world better, they are just talking about them. It's all still in the labs. Over the last 10-15 years, Apple has released iPods, iPhones, and iPads. Products that profoundly changed and made a difference in people's lives.

I haven't seen a single industry Google has completely revolutionized like the iPod, iPhone, and iPad in the same time frame. The last industry Google completely revolutionized was search and the last time they did that was in the 1990's. You can't buy a Project Ara phone, you can't go to a car lot and buy a driverless car, and Google Glass is by almost all accounts a poorly thought out project and at $1500 a ridiculous price.

There is absolutely nothing special about showing off unfinished ideas that you can't seem to get right. All big tech companies have some really cool "Projects" in their labs that will blow your minds based on what's possible. Because that's the easy part. We put a man on the moon over half a century ago so that doesn't mean much. Google seems to be the only company that wants to show off these projects as if they have actually accomplished something. Even though lots of big companies have this stuff in their labs as well. It's all just PR.

Google can't ever seem to put out a great new innovation that completely changes an industry the way Apple does with products like the iPod, iPhone, and iPad. They have revolutionized the way ads are put in your face and bringing down privacy standards though. I'lll give them that.

There's only so much testing you can do in a lab. The best way is to get the objects to be tested in the hands of as many you can to do real world testing...

MAYBE if apple did that for the iphone 4, the Antenna gate issue might have been avoided

the PR comment was directed to newagemac who believes that Google only does it for "PR FLUFF"

anyways, my comments were directly responses to his, try reading it first, it will give you context to my points.

I did read his comment. I'm pretty sure he was saying [The fact Google announces their project so much in advance] was mainly for PR, not [The fact Google makes those projects] was for PR. You answered as if he said the entire projects were for PR.

If your answer is "public testing", then the main goal of testing is to ultimately make a better product. If Apple makes worse products because of their type of testing (we have no clue if they really do), then that's their problem. But in no way does that explain the "Google is motivated by new ideas while Apple is motivated by profits only" statement you just pulled out. Like I said, those two things are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

How is the type of testing correlated to the motivations of a company?

I think the fact you perceive Google as much less profit-driven than Apple shows how effective their PR strategy is. Google somehow convinced you that their main goal is to make lives better, not profits, despite you not being able to logicially explain why. That's their goal from a PR perspective. And no, that's not malice or a conspiracy. That's just the definition of a corporation.